Systems, old and new
Erland Sommarskog
>Erland Sommarskog (som...@sophocles.algonet.se) wrote:
>> They had elections, isn't that a change? :-)
>
>A point well taken. However, Hitler was also elected (at least initially).
The point about Hitler often lends itself to some debate for some
reason. Although it was a silly, but fatal, game of politics that
gave him the executeive power, one cannot deny that an awful lot
of people voted for him.
Exactly which path Russia is going take is difficult to say, but
certainly the prospects could be better. If Zyuganov wins the
president elections (which is the real business in Russia, the
Duma elections are less important), will there ever be another
free election in Russia? I wouldn't bet my last money on it,
that's for sure.
What this shows is that it takes more than an election system to
create lasting democracy. The Weimar republic is one sad case,
Algeria is a more recent one. In other article Allan raised the
issue of economic development, and that is probably the key.
Post-WWII West Germany was an economic wonder, and with a strong
economic development it is difficult to sow hatred for old mis-
deeds. Now, how to infuse that economic wonder in Russia I don't
have the faintest idea of...
>> Another is that the old system was not as bad as you and I like to imagine.
>
>I disagree about the old system. I suppose it depends on the standard used
>for the assessment. I don't think Russia has ever had a system which a US
>citizen would not regard as oppressive.
Well, your and my statement certainly are not conflict. First,
note that oppression is the only issue. Consider these two
choices:
A) You have the to say whatever you want, but you never know how
to get your next meal.
B) There is always food on the table, but a whisper of criticism
will put you in jail.
Which choice would you make? Which choice do you think most people
would make?
Anyway, notice I didn't say that the old Soviet system wasn't bad
at all, but rather it was slightly less bad than it was depicted in
the west.
>I think it returns to those fundamental questions of the UN Charter,
>Charter 77, etc. Can we non-imperialistically state a list of inalienable
>human rights and demand that all nations respect them? I think the answer
>is yes, and that the Russians have never enjoyed a government which has
>come close to respecting such rights.
Yes that is very true. However, save the short period in 1917,
they are closer than ever. But there is still a lot to be done.
I was not very pleased about the news of approving Russia in
the Council of Europe. The CoE should have higher standards
than so. (Then again, Turkey is a CoE member as well, so...)
--
Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, som...@algonet.se
Simcha Streltsov
: almost a paranoic as the USSR about political dissent. An American friend
: of mine recently found out that he was placed under FBI surveillance
: during the 1960s because he borrowed a Russian textbook from the Boston
: Public Library.
I guess, if he found it only now - it is not that bad ...
: Un-American Activities), Senator Joseph McCarthy, Hollywood blacklists (a
: subject not often spoken about knowadays, but brilliantly dramatized in
: Wood' Allen's film 'Blacklisted').
I never had time to study this period. I am aware of all the
propoganda, massive court cases, etc -
can you tell how many people were executed/jailed at that time -
and what percentage of them was guilty/innocent?
: I may be assuming the role here of a
: devil's advocate, but as far as the flow of information is concerned, even
: the average Soviet citizen had access to information giving a clearer
: picture of what life was like in the USA (translated literature, movies,
: chances to contact Ametrican tourists, exposure to American popular
: culture, a genuine interest in North America)
I would not agree on that:
You probably are underestimating the impact of the full control
of information on Soviet people.
: and innovate. It's interesting, too, that the disciplines in which it was
: most outstanding tend to be oriented towards pure research, thus advancing
: knowledge in the abstract but not yielding any immediate practical or
: material rewards. Kind of like the Greeks: poets, dreamers, geniuses, who
: were ultimately enslaved by the increasingly lazy and corrupt policemen,
: lawyers, engineers, and rangmasters that made up an increasingluy larger
: portionm of the popualtion of practical and vulgar Rome.
Most of the advanced research was/is done in the secret labs -
"po box"'s - maybe they are writing poems there - I dont know
Simcha Streltsov, _Former_ Adar Rabbi of S.C.Soviet
-------------------------
please, only Kosher lePesach homentashen
all others will be returned unopened.
p.s. This sig expired, but nobody have sent me real
homentashen anyway
Wayne Nehwadowich
>
> Anyway, notice I didn't say that the old Soviet system wasn't bad
> at all, but rather it was slightly less bad than it was depicted in
> the west.
Which was your favorite Gulag?
-- Wayne
Eugene *fraer*
> One of my favorite Soviet-era jokes captures the essense of your >argument brilliantly.
>
> A man walks into the militsia station in a Soviet provincial city and
> asks for an application to emigrate to Israel.
> The militiaman who deals with him is shocked. 'Doesn't living in the
> biggest, most powerful country on the face of the earth mean anything to
> you?' the militiaman asks indignantly.
> 'Can't complain,' answers the would-be immigrant.
> 'And how do you feel about living in a country with free health care
> and free education for everyone?' continues the militiaman.
> 'Can't complain,' the man answers again.
> 'Then tell me, comrade', asks the militiaman, 'why do you want to
> reject your great Motherland and emigrate to the Zionist entity?'
> 'Can't complain!' the man answered decisively.
The other old, but good joke on the topic:
The old Jew walked into OVIR (the visa office) to apply for immigration.
The official asked him:
- Why do you deside to immigrate?
- I have two reasons. First: when the power of Communist would fell i the
USSR it could be pogroms.
- Are you fool? The power of Communists would never fell!
- This is my second reason.
--
DISCLAIMER: Written above expresses opinions of the fraer only, and
even other fraers would not agree with this.
Yury Mukharsky
<Eugene Holman (hol...@katk.helsinki.fi) wrote:
<
<: almost a paranoic as the USSR about political dissent. An American friend
<: of mine recently found out that he was placed under FBI surveillance
<: during the 1960s because he borrowed a Russian textbook from the Boston
<: Public Library.
<
<I guess, if he found it only now - it is not that bad ...
Right, in Russia the punishment for taking English textbook from the library
was firing squad. They used to execute whole classes of 5-graders for that.
Only negligient survived.
Yury
Alexander Galkin
> I may be assuming the role here of a
>devil's advocate, but as far as the flow of information is concerned, even
>the average Soviet citizen had access to information giving a clearer
>picture of what life was like in the USA (translated literature, movies,
Hi, Eugene, don't torture yourself.
Saying truth is always easy and pleasent ("Pravdu govorit' vsegda legko i
priyatno, vasha milost'").
In the sphere of propaganda the post-Stalinist Soviet Union was definetely
more liberal than the free America. We enjoyed reading Vonnegut and
Folkner without being questioned by KGB. english even was an obligatory subject
for most of schoolchildren.
Those living in Uniaon or autonomous republics in
addition were obliged to learn, say, Estonian or Georgian.
And could take the books in corresponding languages without eing suspected by
anyone.
>chances to contact Ametrican tourists, exposure to American popular
>culture, a genuine interest in North America) during the Cold War than did
>his or her American counterpart, who generally dismissed the USSR and
Our family subscribed "Amerika" and "Angliya" journals through corresponding
embassies and obtained them through the regular post office without any
remarks. Both journal used to place the timetables of BBC and The Voice of
America broadcastng in every issue. Definetely, the Brezhnev-Andropov
USSR in which I grew up was more liberal than the US of your childhood, as
far as we use our firsthand experiences, wasn't it?
>Soviet/Russian culture as not worth even thinking seriously about. I
>certainly remember the feeling of utter shock and disbelief when the
>Soviets launched the first earth satellite, as well as the realization -
>the first for many average Americans - that the USSR was an advanced
>industrial and scientific nation.
>
Somehow communist never even tried to implant disrespect or superiority to,
say, Americans or Frenchmen into oppressed Russian souls.
> A man walks into the militsia station in a Soviet provincial city and
>asks for an application to emigrate to Israel.
The joke is good. But the one wishing to emigrate dealt with OVIR rather
than with militia. Both belonged to the same ministry of interior) but were
distinctly different organizations. >
>Here I concur. They few things the USSR really seriously concentrated on -
>cheap and efficient urban transit, the early exploration of space, the
>development of simple-to-use and durable weapons such as the Kalashnikov
>and some of the planes in the Mig 2X series, world championship-level
>chess, technical and scientific education, abstract mathematics,
>theoretical physics, metallurgy - it did excellently. Unfortunately, their
>goals tended to be low and they lacked a serious willingness to compete
>and innovate.
Unfortunately your list failed to include excellent secondary education for all
which even now is achived only in Asian Dragons and creating of the huge health
service. The latter wasn't free of shortcomings but it was the first time when
the basic services where supplied to virtually all the population.
The tzarist Russia ensured the regular Health service to less than 15% of its
population. The advanced obstetrical care was introduced everywhere.
The extremely effective antiepidemic service.
In terms of equality of possibilities for women USSR was far ahead of US.
The share of women in such professions as physicians and school teachers
approached 50% marks and in engineers and scientists 20% when in USA the
females still were exceptions rather than 10% breaking number.
The bolshevic regime definetely brought a basic democratic (in sense of the
social progress) message as well as violent one.
In 1920 in Leningrad the special Pedagogical Institute for the Northern peoples
started working, which was educating teachers for nentsy, nganasan etc. from
(mainly students of native origine) while in many US states the blacks couldn't
vote or enter the whites' bar.
>It's interesting, too, that the disciplines in which it was
>most outstanding tend to be oriented towards pure research, thus advancing
>knowledge in the abstract but not yielding any immediate practical or
>material rewards. Kind of like the Greeks: poets, dreamers, geniuses, who
>were ultimately enslaved by the increasingly lazy and corrupt policemen,
>lawyers, engineers, and rangmasters that made up an increasingluy larger
>portionm of the popualtion of practical and vulgar Rome.
>
>Regards,
>Eugene Holman
Not all the Greeks were geniuses or even philosophers. Just like not all of
Soviet people used to play chess.
I'd rather look at it from different point of view: delicate Greeks who enjoyed
theatre and everyday bisexuality were enslaved by straight and straightforward
bastards of Etruskians ;-}
Best,
Tom Jagiella
<gal...@shum.cc.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
[...]
No, this is just a silly message.
Gee, I sure am glad to have access to s.c.r. and s.c.b. I though all those
dissidents and defectors were telling the truth. Eugene and Alexander have
set me straight.
The utopia of the proletariat was undermined by evil Western agents,
posing as disaffected Soviet citizens.
Finally, it all makes sense ...
--
Tom Jagiella
Rice University
luga...@rice.edu
Simcha Streltsov
: Right, in Russia the punishment for taking English textbook from the library
: was firing squad. They used to execute whole classes of 5-graders for that.
: Only negligient survived.
I remember being in an apartment in 1976 where
there were several books on such innocent topics as
History of Israel -
and then a visitor who was not very trusted (but
not more) wsa coming -
and they forgot to put the books away.
When the visitor left - someone noticed that books were
lying openly on the side table -
and there was a chilling pause.
that was called "rasprostranenie antisovetskoi literaturi" -
_distribution_ of anti-soviet literature
(5 to 7 years, AFAIR).
the nuance was that it was "distribution", not "keeping"
that was formally punishable, therefore, you get in trouble
if someone confesses that you've given him the book.
Eugene Holman
luga...@rice.edu (Tom Jagiella) wrote:
>
> Gee, I sure am glad to have access to s.c.r. and s.c.b. I though all those
> dissidents and defectors were telling the truth. Eugene and Alexander have
> set me straight.
>
Give it some serious thought. The Soviet Union was a major publisher of
translated literature, both belletristic and scientific, and the Soviet
public, more or less cut off from the Western entertainment media, had to
satisfy its curiosity by reading, which they did with a passion. Even
during the final years of the Brezhnev era (and probably before) you could
find flea markets and second-hand stores dealing in second-hand American
paperbacks and records, not to mention a wide range of translated
literature, some of it (I'm thinking specifically of *Nad propast'ju vo
rzhi* - *The Catcher in the Rye*) regarded as mildly subversive even by
certain circles in the US. Of course the national literatures of the
constituent Soviet republics were also translated into Russian and other
national languages, thus giving yet an additional set of viewpoints and
cultural perspectives.
A book that really made me think seriously about these issues was *Pojedka
cherez Ameriku (?)* ('Along America's Roads') by Vassili Peskov and Boris
Strelnikov (1974?). It was written by two American-based Soviet
correspondents for Pravda, who, in the early 1970s, rented a car and made
a six-week journey across the United States and back, covering 27 states
and more than 10,000 miles. They planned their journey so that they would
stop in cities and towns that seemed to have Russian names - St.
Petersburg in Florida, Moscow in Idaho, Odessa in Texas, etc. This took
them to some real backwaters, but gave them a real taste of the US. Their
reporting was objective, fair, and eye-opening, and the book was printed
in a run of several hundred thousand copies. Of course the fact that
America was a much more open society than the Soviet Union made such a
journey and book possible. The sheer size of the USSR, not to mention the
vastly inferior infrastructure and the bureacracy, would have made an
analogous trip by American journalists almost impossible.
The important thing about the book was its first chapter. It introduces
two 'typical' secondary school students, a Soviet boy and an American
girl, and asks them questions about each other's AND their own countries.
The questions were quite simple: name three Soviet republics and three
American states, name three Russian/Soviet authors and three American
authors, name three mountain ranges in the USSR and in the United States.
The amazing thing was that the Soviet kid knew much more about the USA
(not to mention his own country) than the American girl (who was by no
means stupid) knew about either the USSR OR her own country - ask the next
American 16-year old you meet to name three American and three Russian
composers, authors, poets, mountain ranges, national parks, Olympic gold
medalists, or painters, for example. Now, it's true that the Soviet
educational system was more oriented towards cramming factual information
into students' heads than the American one, with its emphasis on
self-expression and individuality, is, but nevertheless, the background
that the Soviet boy had was obviously the result of his having done some
serious reading in fields like geography, history, and cultural studies,
which had no counterpart in the American girl's experience - and this
holds true for her knowledge about both the USSR AND her own country.
I spent a month many years ago (during the last days of Yuri Andropov's
tenure) doing research at the Lenin Library in Moscow, and just about
every book I could think of, even books that were violently anti-Soviet
like J. Edgar Hoover's *Masters of Deceit*, was available: you just had to
figure out a way to get a library card (and to have mastered enough
English to be able to read it profitably). Photocopying was almost
impossible to get (the copying point was open 15 minutes a day, and you
had to fill in a long application in triplicate), thus making utilizing
the information extremely difficult for any but the most resourceful.
Still, the world viewed from a quality Soviet journal like *Novoe Vremya*
('New Times'), which I subscribed to and enjoyed reading for many years,
was in many ways more balanced, I would claim, than the world viewed
through its American counterparts *Time* and *Newsweek*.
So, the dissidents and defectors were telling the truth: the Soviet
authorities recognized the importance of information and they went to
extreme efforts to mete it out in small doses to those it wanted access to
it, spitefully punishing anyone who tried to challenge its monopoly. On
the other hand, it realized that its school system was producing
critically thinking, intelligent people who could not be hoodwinked. It
offered them all the information they wanted, but made them go to
herculean efforts to obtain it.
> The utopia of the proletariat was undermined by evil Western agents,
> posing as disaffected Soviet citizens.
>
I think it was undermined by average Soviet citizens who wanted to try
Coca-Cola, wear Levis and pantyhose, eat hamburgers, chew bubblegum, see
Paris, watch Dallas, and not spend half their lives standing in cues. If
the USSR had not regarded such trivial activities as seditious, it might
still be around today. In Khrushchev's memoirs (*Khrushchev Remembers*,
edited by Strobe Talbot) there is a delightful chapter in which
Khrushchev, experiencing the relative prosperity of Yugoslavia, asks Tito
how they did it. Tito tells him that a major source of income was the
tourist industry. Khrushchev answers, saying that the Soviets had
considered that, but gave up the idea because of the problems involved
keeping Soviets from making contacts with foreigners. 'No problem with
that,' Tito says, 'we encourage it.' 'What?,' Khrushchev responds, 'Do
that, and next thing you know, your citizens will want to travel, too.'
Tito says, 'No problem, we encourage them to travel.' 'But,' Khrushchev
says incredulously, 'If they're allowed to travel, they might want to stay
abroad.' 'We let them do that, too,' says Tito, 'and they often stay
abroad for several years, working and sending a substantial part of their
earnings back home.' Khrushchev just scratches his head in disbelief. It's
an amazing chapter, and it tells an awful lot about the Soviet ambivalence
towards the power of uncontrolled information and its distrust of its
citizens.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Tom Jagiella
hol...@katk.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> In article <lugantom-100...@pasyn-84.rice.edu>,
> luga...@rice.edu (Tom Jagiella) wrote:
>
> >
> > Gee, I sure am glad to have access to s.c.r. and s.c.b. I though all those
> > dissidents and defectors were telling the truth. Eugene and Alexander have
> > set me straight.
> >
>
> Give it some serious thought. [...]
Sorry, Eugene, I've been tied up lately, couldn't respond.
I don't think you and I are disagreeing, really. To me, what you're saying
is basically "Most men aren't as bad as their ex-wives would have us
believe." I think the danger in your comments is that they feed into the
Holocaust-denial pattern, in which people try to turn communism into one
big, historical Potemkin Village. That's why I reacted with sarcasm.
I agree that West and East still suffer from many misconceptions about one
another and general cultural differnces, and I throughly enjoy detailed
discussion of instances. Your discussion of your studies in Moscow (it was
Moscow, wasn't it) are especially enlightening.
Unfortunately, my attempts to provoke such discussions have been largely
fruitless.
Here's one example of the sort of thing I have in mind (maybe I've already
mentioned it). I went to a hardware store with a Lithuanian cousin to buy
some materials I needed to improve my home. He couldn't believe that I had
to pay money for such basic items. Under communism, he explained, such
items were stolen from collectives. He said that if a mason refused to
allow others to steal state owned bricks, his neighbors would likely
regard him as anti-social. Nobody bought bricks.
Analogous behavior does exist in the West - the differences, as you have
pointed out, are not always so clear. For example, in the steel mills
around Gary, Indiana, similar practices were common. If a man worked in a
welding shop and you told him you needed some welding rods, he would have
been very rude to refuse. The US has always had its own variations on
black markets.